Yeah. Looks vanilla on the outside, but there’s some funky stuff buried within. I’m up to my eyeballs in work-stuff as well, but based on the contributions of Trevett, Watkins and Young I have mixed feelings. Looks like the sort of compromise which will confuse everyone and make nobody particularly happy.

Three timetables: media (by the hour), political (2011), and legal (for years to come).

So the last one’s a nightmare – hey, two out of three ain’t bad. It’s not like John Key’s going to hang around to face the consequences, once the inevitable court cases unravel it all, in National’s second term. That’ll be Prime Minister Judith Collins’ problem.

You (or Audrey Young) have missed an important bit of the document out in this …

“If the coastal hapū/iwi gave permission, the consent authority could process the application but would still need to decide whether it satisfied the statutory criteria of the RMA before granting consent. The consent authority would be unable to grant a coastal permit beyond the scope of the application that was permitted by the coastal hapū/iwi.”

In other words, if someone wants to do something (i.e. build a mussel farm) on a bit of the foreshore/seabed that an Iwi/hapu can show “customary title” to, they need two sets of permissions. First permission is from the Iwi/Hapu, according to its own “world view” (i.e. if it thinks the development is kosher, to mix my cultural references). This permission needn’t take into account the RMA, just the same as a landowner doesn’t need to consider the RMA when saying “yes” or “no” to a request to do something on his/her land. Second permission is from the local council/regional authority, according to the RMA criteria. Without this, the development can’t go ahead either.

So the important point to note is this … an Iwi/Hapu can’t allow a mussel farm, etc to go ahead outside of the RMA … it’s just they can say “no” to things that the RMA otherwise would have allowed.

See section 5.2 of the consultation document. You’ll need a coastal permit from the relevant regional council, and if the stilt house is on foreshore/seabed that has customary title proven, the permission of the local Iwi/Hapu.

Of course, if you can buy yourself some foreshore/seabed before this all goes through, you’ll still get to keep it.

It is bad outcome. Giving Iwi only the right to say no will simpy ensure one off two outcomes – nothing will happen, or “no” will actually mean “give us a big fat envelope stuffed with cash and we’ll think about it.” I think the only just solution for all New Zealanders is to declare the F&S a commons. Then you’ll see the fat cats squeal regardless of colour…

Iwi don’t just have the right to say no. They have the right to say yes or no. It’s just that if they say yes, the local council/authority also has to say yes (under the RMA). And I don’t know why anyone would be upset that Maori might seek to share in the benefits gained from economic activity undertaken in an area they have “customary title” to (as that is defined in law) … if a Church charges stall owners $20 to participate in a Saturday jumblesale in the Church Hall, is that a bad thing?

Furthermore, I’m not sure what you mean by declaring the F&S a commons. You can’t mean “anyone can use it for anything” – otherwise fat cats will very happily fill it up with mussel farms and marinas. So do you mean “no one can use it for anything”? Or, “no one can use if for anything unless everyone agrees to that use”? In which case, who is “everyone” here?

Thanks for clearing that up Andrew. My initial understanding is that iwi/hapu weren’t bound by the RMA. Politically this is just as interesting, in that the government campaigned against constraints placed on businesses by the RMA, and they’re actually placing another level of compliance on top of it – at least as regards to coastal areas.

Thanks for clearing that up Andrew. My initial understanding is that iwi/hapu weren’t bound by the RMA. Politically this is just as interesting, in that the government campaigned against constraints placed on businesses by the RMA, and they’re actually placing another level of compliance on top of it – at least as regards to coastal areas.

It’s not really another level of compliance. It’s just that it’s somebody else’s land. If I want to build a farm on your front lawn, I’d need resource consent from the council, and permission from you. I’m not really sure that I’d consider that needing permission from you is a “level of compliance”. It’s just polite =)